#43 - Episode XIII - Prop Pardons Edition

[TsingTao]

That's a great super cut, so many good movies.

[kuronosan]

Mitch says $2k approved if Section 230 is repealed.

[Tyrath]

Poison pill to get the GOP off the hook

[Gredival]

Honestly imagine if the Dems played ball. Parler goes down way faster than Tumblr. And Zuck can go fuck himself.

[TsingTao]

That's not getting them off the hook, they'll get hammered for holding not working people hostage over something that doesn't mean shit to Joe and Jane Unemployed.

Honestly imagine if the Dems played ball. Parler goes down way faster than Tumblr. And Zuck can go fuck himself.

I don't want to imagine a world where the Dems are dumb enough to give in to ridiculous Section 230 demands over a one time payment for which the GOP will take all the credit.

[Tyrath]

Honestly imagine if the Dems played ball. Parler goes down way faster than Tumblr. And Zuck can go fuck himself.

Can someone explain to me the implications of repealing 230 and how this all happens?

[Gredival]

230 basically means website publishers are protected when someone fucks around and posts illegal content on their service. Trump wants it gone ever since they started fact checking him

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Athas]

Did anyone explain to him that wouldn't stop people from doing that?

[kuronosan]

Did anyone explain to him that wouldn't stop people from doing that?

Does anyone really think Trump understands this shit?

[Byrthnoth]

Perhaps this is a simplistic understanding or isn't what they are talking about, but . . . . Iirc it means that websites and ISPs are effectively regulated as publishers. This means they can be sued for libel if someone posts a lie on their Facebook wall.

Sites like facebook would have to crack down on untrustworthy news sources. Furthermore, ISPs would probably use the death of net neutrality to limit their liability by blocking sites like Breitbart and pushing us back into walled gardens. It would disproportionately affect Republicans and their allies but the internet would suck.

That is why no one serious actually considers repealing 230. Replacing it with something better would be good, but Republicans have never even engaged the problem much less proposed a solution they could get behind.

[archibaldcrane]

The "repeal 230" idiots aren't really mad that they can't sue twitter or whatever for someone making fun of them.

They're mad because those companies moderate their nonsense. They want social media to be an absolute cesspool of unchecked misinformation, conspiracy theories and nonsense (aka the REAL TRUTH)

but doing this would really just make those platforms overrun by porn

[Day]

yes but i think you are forgetting mods are ****

[Tymon]

That's not getting them off the hook, they'll get hammered for holding not working people hostage over something that doesn't mean shit to Joe and Jane Unemployed.



I don't want to imagine a world where the Dems are dumb enough to give in to ridiculous Section 230 demands over a one time payment for which the GOP will take all the credit.

I was told in another thread that this opinion is privilege and literally killing little Timmy and his family so take that as you will

[Day]

well it is

[Day]

i dont want millons of americans to get more money bc of politics plus im all set so what is the big deal

[Byrthnoth]

The "repeal 230" idiots aren't really mad that they can't sue twitter or whatever for someone making fun of them.

They're mad because those companies moderate their nonsense. They want social media to be an absolute cesspool of unchecked misinformation, conspiracy theories and nonsense (aka the REAL TRUTH)

but doing this would really just make those platforms overrun by porn

I know they aren't on playing with a full deck, but the repeal of 230 leads to severe moderation, not no moderation.

[Apelila]

Spoiler: show

Perhaps this is a simplistic understanding or isn't what they are talking about, but . . . . Iirc it means that websites and ISPs are effectively regulated as publishers. This means they can be sued for libel if someone posts a lie on their Facebook wall.

Sites like facebook would have to crack down on untrustworthy news sources. Furthermore, ISPs would probably use the death of net neutrality to limit their liability by blocking sites like Breitbart and pushing us back into walled gardens. It would disproportionately affect Republicans and their allies but the internet would suck.

That is why no one serious actually considers repealing 230. Replacing it with something better would be good, but Republicans have never even engaged the problem much less proposed a solution they could get behind.

The "repeal 230" idiots aren't really mad that they can't sue twitter or whatever for someone making fun of them.

They're mad because those companies moderate their nonsense. They want social media to be an absolute cesspool of unchecked misinformation, conspiracy theories and nonsense (aka the REAL TRUTH)

but doing this would really just make those platforms overrun by porn

I know they aren't on playing with a full deck, but the repeal of 230 leads to severe moderation, not no moderation.

I think we're going to see a lot more "Agree on the end point, but disagree on which paths to get there" in the near future.

You're both right, but I think these things will happen at different times. Since I don't think it will pass, I will spoiler the argument.

Spoiler: show

The process of what will happen if FAANG and the gang suddenly have a higher liability for people using their services to incite violence is going to be long term. Losing a protection in this case might be better described as being reclassified, in a sense. Does Facebook suddenly look more like a publisher in a liable suit than a social media company, now that "social media company" no longer carries an implicit protection, or something else?

It's really hard to tease how it would fall out immediately and over time. Archi's right, team red wants titties* and Trump and whatever other shit that they can eat right out of the media trough. They don't want quality, they want content and they want that content without any limits.

Which seems really, really, really fucking stupid, but yeah. Quality be damned, shove it in their fat fucking faces as long is it's rubbing their Trump clit.

But Trump himself seems to really, REALLY wants to go gawkster on anyone posting his dirty laundry. If he sets that precedent, between it and the current pornhub saga the pornopanoply that is the current internet is gone. Well, what's left at this point at anyrate.

*I had to add this to my spelling dictionary twice. Once with, then without cap T.

But all that's me waxing about what would happen if they actually repealed it. Trump himself wants to go gawkster on anyone posting his dirty laundry, and that part always sounds like Giuliani's influence, but it won't happen. After the runoff the next few weeks are procedure after procedure that they can use to drag their asses all the way to election day arguing about it.

[archibaldcrane]

I know they aren't on playing with a full deck, but the repeal of 230 leads to severe moderation, not no moderation.

They tell themselves that repealing 230 means "no moderation, no algorithms, just the raw uncut posting"

But yes they are idiots for thinking repealing 230 obtains that goal. What they want is "IF you moderate in any way THEN you are liable for whatever you allow to be posted, THEREFORE you'll not moderate at all".

[Yabby]

If you want to know what killing 230 would really mean for YOU, it would mean you would have to soon invest in one of those global VPN's. A lot of countries already have the opposite of 230, and tech companies already know how to work around it for the most part. What that means for Americans is you will start seeing the "This content isn't available in your country". Primarily because any content that isn't posted in a way that they can confirm doesn't get them sued will get blackholed in this country until they do.

Most here haven't seen that often, because tech companies don't have to worry about it in America. But go surf the net across the seas and try doing your normal twitter/Reddit/etc surfing and you will start to see the "Not in your country" tag.

[6souls]

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/stat...64856424144897